PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Norma Cummings Rettek appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, J.), which granted defendants-appellees’ motions to dismiss. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Spagnola v. Chubb Corp., 574 F.3d 64, 67 (2d Cir. 2009). We accept “all well-pled factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences *212 in the plaintiffs favor to decide whether the plaintiff has pled a plausible claim for relief.” Id. (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007))).

Having reviewed Rettek’s contentions on appeal and the record of the proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. New York law does not grant a plaintiff standing to enforce a charitable gift restriction based solely on the plaintiffs familial relationship to the donor. The dis-positive distinction between this case and Smithers v. St Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, 281 A.D.2d 127, 128, 139, 140-41, 723 N.Y.S.2d 426 (1st Dep’t 2001), is that Rettek is not the legal representative of the donors’ estates. Accordingly, she lacks standing to pursue this action and has no choice but to rely on the Attorney General to enforce the gift restrictions.

For two reasons, we decline to certify any question related to Rettek’s standing to the New York Court of Appeals. First, as discussed above, there is sufficient clarity in New York law. See Doyle v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 583 F.3d 167, 172 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[Certification is not necessary where precedent is clear and application of law to fact requires no grand or novel pronouncements of New York law.”). Second, the Court of Appeals has twice denied leave to appeal in state cases that presented analogous questions: Bd. of Educ. of Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Att’y Gen., 25 A.D.3d 637, 811 N.Y.S.2d 685 (2d Dep’t), leave denied, 7 N.Y.3d 807, 822 N.Y.S.2d 479, 855 N.E.2d 795 (2006), and In re Alaimo, 288 A.D.2d 916, 732 N.Y.S.2d 819 (4th Dep’t 2001), leave denied, 97 N.Y.2d 609, 739 N.Y.S.2d 357, 765 N.E.2d 853 (2002). Cf. Doyle, 583 F.3d at 172 (declining to certify where “the state courts have already thrown this case out, revived it, and then thrown it out again ... [thereby] expressing] their desire to be rid of it (twice) and it would be an imposition on the state’s highest court for us to serve it up again”).

Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.